N Korea defies US over nuclear crisis

[Solly]

I'm munching me way through 800 grams of Maltesers.

[Sava]

I'm so sick of this chest thumping by Bush and his cronies. North Korea has every right to have nuclear weapons. Nobody is looking at things from their perspective. The US has been an aggressor since after WW2... North Korea, IMO, is simply scared and is looking for that Mutually Assured Destruction assurance so that the US doesn't unilaterally attack it. The US is in the wrong here. Not NK.

[SlowwHand]

More well-thought out opinion by the esteemed Sava.
North Korea doesn't have the sense to take down their pants before relieving themselves.
All they want is free food, courtesy of the old Red, White, and Blue.

BTW, Lord Sava. They'll even take it from President Bush.

[Bereta_Eder]

oh, not that the blair doggie of albright in yugoslavia wasnt something.
(again without disregarding serbia's mistakes)

NATO killed 2000 CIVILIAns in that war.

2000 serbs women and children.

you were one of the front runners for the bombings to take palce (since you always do what the US tells you to).


But its not about yugoslavia (only) as you realize now

anyway peace


but if somebody nukes the UK
ill be sad, but ill still be eatingmy pop corn D

[Sava]

Sloww: You have to realize, I only Fez when I'm too lazy to think about the topic... unfortunately, that's all too often

[GePap]

The North Korean's are playing nuclear chicken: this is their way to get things formt he outside world: nukes and missiles are the only worthwhile things they produce, and its their one way of getting food. The problem is that, thanks to their rhetoric, the Busshies can't turn away in time, and the DPRK has no reason to turn around anyway. Someone up in washington is going to have to swallow their pride and allow for some talking with Pyongyang. As for all the chest thumping about us beating NK right quick: The US military can defeat North Korea quickly, but it will still be a very messy war, far far messier than any campaign with Iraq, and with a campaign in Iraq imminent the cumulative political costs would be great: the economic cost would be disasterous. N.Korea coul be nuked of the face of the world and the wold economy wouldn't care, but destroy Seoul, or nuke Tokyo, cause a few hundreads of Billions of dollars in damage,and see the world economy take a spill, and this is without a possible threat to oil supplies. Add that in, and you will get a right fine mess.

Eli:

1. N. Korea can't reach the US with its current missiles.
2. Lybia and Iran are in far better standing in the world than DPRK and Iraq. The Russians will finish their reactor in Iran, regardless of US whinning. So don't expect much. After all, all those little hopes that the US might go after Syria when it was finished with Iraq have already vanished.

[Sava]

I don't recall North Korea starting this game of chicken... Bush is the one who provoked them with his "axis of evil" speech.

[SlowwHand]

And why do you suppose the statement was made?
He just has a hard-on about North Koreans?
Plucked the thought right out of the blue?
Poor little ignorant commies can't even build a road.
They can attempt building nukes though.
Leave them alone. With a little luck, meltdown.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And why do you suppose the statement was made?
He just has a hard-on about North Koreans?
Plucked the thought right out of the blue?
Poor little ignorant commies can't even build a road.
They can attempt building nukes though.
Leave them alone. With a little luck, meltdown.

Given their proficiency in building Missiles, that ignorant statment of yours is definitely in the wrong place: (add to that that most intelligence agencies think the DPRK might already have a couple of warheads). Hint Sloww, Koreans can build things: it's a little known fact, but its true.

As for why Bush made the statement: the "Axis of Evil" speech was horribly idiotic. It has only given grief since then; but he made it 'cause it fits the Manichean visions f the neo-conservative ideologues running our government. Read up on the statements of people like Perle and Armitage if you want to see where these people come from.

[DinoDoc]

GePap: How exactly would you go about generating the good faith needed to have fruitful negotiations given the recent history of negotiations with the North.

[SlowwHand]

Gepap, before you run your mouth insulting, maybe you ought to go do some fact-finding.
North Korea was to build a road to the DMZ, they haven't even started, while South Korea has been done for a lonnng time.
Sure, North Korea can build whatever the **** they want to try and build, just like I said.

[Flubber]

While the world would be a better place if no more nations got the bomb ( and a much better place if the thibgs had been never invented), the reality is that they exist and we must deal with them.

I don't comprehend under what authority the US determines who gets to have a particular weapon. How can one nation-state tell another that it is not permitted to have a certain weapon? What would the US do if Canada , Germany, Brazil and Australia announced they were going to develop nuclear arsenals?? Other than political pressure, they would do nothing, I expect.


So getting the bomb is "OK" for some nation-states and not for others??

Don't get me wrong . . . on a purely self-interested "protect-the west" level, I am happy when steps are taken to eliminate nuclear weapons programs in nations that are dogmatically anti-western. But my liking of a result makes it no more "right"


The bottom line is that essentially we are setting up a hierarchy of nation-states. Some are trusted to act responsibly while others are not. The untrustworthy states are to be limited in what they can do. The only problem with this is the question of who gets to determine the hierarchy and who gets to enforce it and how

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Originally posted by Eli


The Taipo-Dong 2 missiles can reach all the Western part of the US.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

The Taepo Dong Two has been test fired several times. Estimates are imprecise, but many experts (US intelligence - for what it's worth) think the new rocket might be able to reach Hawaii and parts of Alaska with its payload. Would it even hit near the target - no one seems to know, probably not even the NK. Not what I would call all the Western part of the US. Of course you could nuke Hawaii... but why? If you're going to use the limited number of nukes you have (and small they are), you would use them against an invasion force.

The Taepo Dong One missile was the type fired over Japan.

[Graag]

Getting back to my earlier ranting, can anyone see how the US' current line on nukes and this "axis of evil" business can lead to anything other than an utter global polarisation of pro and anti US nations?
And when the various anti-US nations do get nukes in 20 years or so (try and stop 'em), wtf does the US plan to do? All looks very dodgy to me. All it will take then is one nutty dictator, and bang... bye bye world.

An off-the-cuff example: Many Middle-east states obtain nukes following US invasion of Iraq, with Iran leading and other, previously pro-US states middle-east states following.
The first time the US tries to do anything against one of them, who's leader is having a bad day, a few nukes get lobbed at Israel, who nukes everyone around it, who then nuke everyone they dislike including the US, N. Korea and China get in on the action, Russia sees a good opportunity to grab Europe, France and England do similar (in retaliation of course), anywhere not yet nuked falls into civil war and economic ruin, the global economy collapses and the only place safe to live is New Zealand, which isn't big enough for everyone. Somewhere or other India and Pakistan blow the crap out of each other too.

Any other WW3/Apocalypse/Nuclear War ideas out there? It's something that I'm finding interesting at the moment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

he made it 'cause it fits the Manichean visions f the neo-conservative ideologues running our government.

Actually he made the statement because he truely believes those countries are evil. Bush is very Wilsonian in the fact that he is an idealist and believes that his goal is to spread democracy and take care of the baddies.

And if anything, this basically proves NK definetly belongs in the 'Axis of Evil'.

[Graag]

he is an idealist and believes that his goal is to spread democracy

Are you kidding? He's drying up what democracy is left in his home country, let alone anywhere else.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

The US will have a missile shield by than. Way before that point. We already have a limited one protecting military valuables. It will be those who have a shield against those who don't. Pretty much like now - those who have nukes and those who don't.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Originally posted by Graag


Are you kidding? He's drying up what democracy is left in his home country, let alone anywhere else.

oh please.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I'm not kidding. Ask anyone that is around him. Read the last Time Magazine. There is an interesting article. He believes that he has a mission to spread democracy to the Middle East, and believes that if he can get rid of Saddam, he can build a 1st World Democracy that will show the rest of the region that that is the way to go.

And how is he 'drying up democracy' at home? I haven't seen him jail Democrat leaders yet.

[Graag]

The US will have a missile shield by than. Way before that point. We already have a limited one protecting military valuables. It will be those who have a shield against those who don't. Pretty much like now -
those who have nukes and those who don't.

Please provide an iota of evidence. I really am curious!

oh please.

And how is he 'drying up democracy' at home?

I am largely refering to the Patriot act. I quote from the Guardian

a number of the Bush Administration's new laws, orders and policies are deservedly controversial: the disregard for international treaties and conventions; strict controls on media reports about the war; secret surveillance and searches of citizens* computers; widespread ethnic profiling; indefinite detention of non-citizens; offers of expedited American citizenship to those who provide evidence about terrorists; and military tribunals with the power to try enemies in secret, without application of the usual laws of evidence, without right of appeal, yet with the ability to impose the death penalty. Opportunity for legislative or other public discussion of these measures has been largely eclipsed by the rapidity with which most of them have been pushed into effect.

http://www.observer.co.uk/libertywat...610367,00.html

another reference http://www.amisuk.f9.co.uk/LMDarticles/Jan02art1.html

Best I could do at short notice, but you get the jist

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm so sick of this chest thumping by Bush and his cronies. North Korea has every right to have nuclear weapons. Nobody is looking at things from their perspective. The US has been an aggressor since after WW2... North Korea, IMO, is simply scared and is looking for that Mutually Assured Destruction assurance so that the US doesn't unilaterally attack it. The US is in the wrong here. Not NK.

Sava, if you lived on the West Coast in range of the NK nukes, I think you just might have a different attitude.

I am sure that the Japanese, South Koreans, Russians and Chinese are all very concerned by developments in NK.

The NK has now become an aggressive international outlaw by breaking treaties concerning the acquistion of Nuclear Weapons. The question is not so much what the US does, but what the United Nations does. I am sure the UN will listen to the US, China, Russia, South Korea and Japan very carefully.

[Sava]

Bush is only going to start wars, not spread Democracy. He even said during the Afghan campaign, "We aren't in the nation building business."

[Graag]

Ned:

The NK has now become an aggressive international outlaw by breaking treaties

What a horrible place the world would be if other, more powerful countries did that!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


Sava, if you lived on the West Coast in range of the NK nukes, I think you just might have a different attitude.

I am sure that the Japanese, South Koreans, Russians and Chinese are all very concerned by developments in NK.

The NK has now become an aggressive international outlaw by breaking treaties concerning the acquistion of Nuclear Weapons. The question is not so much what the US does, but what the United Nations does. I am sure the UN will listen to the US, China, Russia, South Korea and Japan very carefully.

in range of NK nukes? okay go learn about NK missile capabilities because you obviously don't know about them at this point...

South Korea recently elected a leader that is in favor of increasing relations with NK and decreasing relations with the US. Russia and China aren't too worried because if NK does anything to anybody it will be US targets or US interests.

Oh please Ned, if you can't see that the US is the aggressor, well perhaps you need to stop watching CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews and start getting your news from objective international sources that don't put a spin on the facts.

[Shi Huangdi]

Well since we know the reactor in question, and aware of possible nuclear silos, couldn't we just bomb possible sites suspected of being related to NK's Nuclear program?

In any case, NK isn't nearly as important as Iraq. The area NK is not particularly important to the war on terrorism, and it isn't like a new nuclear power in the region will undermine US power in the region because there are already 2(China and Russia). It would be a concern though if NK were to spread it's nuclear technology or weapons, I wouldn't put it past NK's leaders to do so. Probably the best solution to solve this would be to work through China and Russia to handle it.

"Actually he made the statement because he truely believes those countries are evil. Bush is very Wilsonian in the fact that he is an idealist and believes that his goal is to spread democracy and take care of the baddies."

Maybe. Powell is a the Sec. of State and I don't think he is an idealist. Bush has been shown willing to work with pro-US dictatorships in the region. And keep in mind any information that he releases to Time Magazine might not nessecarily be his true opinions. It's alot easy to gain popularity by saying you are an idealist then by saying you are a realist in this country.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

probably in a few short years NK will have ICBM capable of reaching a good part of the US. They have missiles now with good range but I wouldnt want to use them for a first strike. Probably miss the target.

probably in a few short years the US will have a somewhat working SDI. We have a SDI system sorta now for the Navy but I wouldnt want to rely on it for a first strike. Probably miss the target.

So... things being pretty even - I'll put my money on the US side.

[Sava]

It's just like the Cold War... the NK's are scared and are only trying to protect themselves from US aggression.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Originally posted by Sava
It's just like the Cold War... the NK's are scared and are only trying to protect themselves from US aggression.

what US aggression?! who are we beating up right now. The UN voted 15 to zip against iraq. are you saying the US really is the UN?? Are all the UN members really puppets for the US?? Come on. Everyone has a say about what's going on.

So what's this US aggression???

[Ned]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
probably in a few short years NK will have ICBM capable of reaching a good part of the US. They have missiles now with good range but I wouldnt want to use them for a first strike. Probably miss the target.

probably in a few short years the US will have a somewhat working SDI. We have a SDI system sorta now for the Navy but I wouldnt want to rely on it for a first strike. Probably miss the target.

So... things being pretty even - I'll put my money on the US side.

I was thinking the same thought. We can protect ourselves from NK missles with an ABM defense. But we cannot protect Japan and SK, two of our allies. Don't you think it would be a tad bit immoral to betray our allies?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Graag
Ned:
What a horrible place the world would be if other, more powerful countries did that!

Well, once Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy were all like that.

I am sure the UK, France and China were glad that the US stood up with them against aggression.